4 Answers
4

SELECT
COUNT(*) AS TOTAL
, SUM(CASE WHEN ApprovalDate IS NOT NULL
THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS Total_Approved
, SUM(CASE WHEN RejectionDate IS NOT NULL
THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS Total_Rejected
, SUM(CASE WHEN ApprovalDate IS NOT NULL
THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) * 100 / COUNT(*) AS Average_Approved
, SUM(CASE WHEN RejectionDate IS NOT NULL
THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) * 100 / COUNT(*) AS Average_Rejected
FROM SuggestedEdits;

You've chosen 3 of my accepted suggestions, so I'm not sure why you've chosen to give me "advise" on these, rather than my rejected suggestions, but here are my comments: 1. Regardless of whether suggestions like this are "suspicious", I edited everything that needed editing within that post. 2. Consensus is to remove tags from titles; there was nothing else to change in the post. 3. I have no idea what you're talking about - the whole post was thoroughly cleaned.
–
Danny BeckettMar 21 '13 at 14:10

2

This is not an attack, I try to give you some advise.
–
Toon KrijtheMar 21 '13 at 14:15

@DannyBeckett Well, if you want to talk about rejected edits, that one really is too minor. And insulting reviewers in your edit message is also not the best approach.
–
BartMar 21 '13 at 14:35

@Bart Can you please tell me, once and for all: is removing a tag from a title, where there is nothing else to edit in the post, given that the consensus is to do so, really too minor?
–
Danny BeckettMar 21 '13 at 14:37

@Bart You're right, I apologise, I just saw your revision. But is the answer to my previous comment, no?
–
Danny BeckettMar 21 '13 at 14:48

@DannyBeckett If there is absolutely nothing else to fix, I will personally not reject such an edit. But as always, the focus should be on the post as a whole when editing. Not the single offending items you noticed.
–
BartMar 21 '13 at 14:49

1

@Bart Thanks for your help! You too Toon. I do appreciate the feedback, although I might not always come across like so.
–
Danny BeckettMar 21 '13 at 14:50

Not only would I reject all 3 of those edits, I advocate audits to punish people who approve them. Suggested edits should address multiple problems with a post; leave the tiny details to people who can edit directly without clogging the review queue.
–
WoobleMar 21 '13 at 14:59

@Bart Can you comment on this suggested edit I made that was just rejected? I don't feel it should have been rejected. Thanks again.
–
Danny BeckettMar 21 '13 at 15:32

1

@DannyBeckett That I would have accepted. But I can see why it was rejected. At first glance my thought was "why did he remove all that content and destroy it?". Primarily with regards to the first code block. More carefully reading through your edit I realized that your edit was not destructive at all, but that was not my first impression. Unfortunate case I'd say.
–
BartMar 21 '13 at 15:40

1

@DannyBeckett the only real thing I can think of for such extensive edits is to clearly describe it in your edit message. But then again, some might simply skip that. Get the required rep to no longer have your edits reviewed I'd say. ;) As for punishing people, I'd rather punish those who accept stuff that shouldn't be. The occasional mistaken rejection I don't mind. ;)
–
BartMar 21 '13 at 15:44

6

@DannyBeckett Believe me, false rejections are annoying, but by no means as big a problem as false acceptances. And this one got approved now. That said, please keep your edit summaries friendly. People are easily triggered on the internet. As anywhere else on the site, be nice. No matter how frustrated. ;) And sorry for the persistent comments Toon. I'll stop here.
–
BartMar 21 '13 at 16:02

So that's a good question and I appreciate that you're thinking critically for how to best contribute to SO, but that's not really the point of suggested edits. When you reach a certain reputation (2k, is it?) you can edit anything you want without it needing to be approved. The suggested edit queue up until that point serves a primary function of training new users to edit properly.

So you will graduate from your edits needing approval regardless of what "grade" you finish with. That being said, really, your goal is to strive for all edits being approved. And certainly understand why your rejected ones are rejected. If you disagree with some, then that's fine, you won't need approval in time and will be on equal standing in the community with your rejector on this issue.

FWIW - on the "too minor" ones, I go with the rule "Did this increase how fast I was able to process the question?" Most do so I approve most, and I nearly always approve title corrections since those impact the presentation of the post to the site and internet at large.

Thank you for your comments, but I've downvoted it due to not answering the actual question. I didn't ask the purpose of the privilege restriction etc. It was a simple, statistical question. Thanks though.
–
Danny BeckettApr 1 '13 at 21:44